4 ms·

> there is absolutely zero chance anyone on the other end is going to take the time to actually read and evaluate each of them This is understandable to think,

> there is absolutely zero chance anyone on the other end is going to take the time to actually read and evaluate each of them This is understandable to think, but is simply wrong -- I know because I'm a software engineer at Canonical who helps review these written submissions. They're sometimes read and reviewed by our CEO, though often he delegates that out to a pool of us reviewers. I always read mine thoroughly, whether they're 3 pages or 30. I don't have exact stats, but from where I sit maybe 80% of them are quality submissions. I'm not defending our interview process here: I agree with many that it's too long and could use improvement. But it's definitely unique and thorough.

dennis_jeeves1 5y ago
>I always read mine thoroughly, whether they're 3 pages or 30. I don't have exact stats, but from where I sit maybe 80% of them are quality submissions. Even if both candidates and the Canonical did this diligently, it is still ridiculous in my eyes, it's religion.
manholio 5y ago
Regardless, the asymmetry is offensively wide: it takes at least an order of magnitude more time to write a text than to read it. The candidate is also under pressure to create a well crafted and professional response, essentially a sample of his best writing. You on the other hand, can do a half-ass job reading it, stop for your lunch break and skip the questions you are not interested in - there is absolutely no written record or evaluation of your reading performance. You might read it but others might send it in the bin after the first paragraph. Why would a company put such a large onus on the candidate, and little to none on itself, while the same could be achieved in a 1 hour skype call, where all these questions could be explored in depth in a symmetrical fashion? The only rational answer is that the company has complete disregard for the candidates and actively seeks out submissive people that lend themselves to easy abuse.
ggeorgovassilis 5y ago
In the process of an interview I'd also like to learn something about the company and the job. Such practices require a substantial upfront effort from the candidate without them learning anything about the job they are applying to.

dennis_jeeves1 5y ago

>I always read mine thoroughly, whether they're 3 pages or 30. I don't have exact stats, but from where I sit maybe 80% of them are quality submissions. Even if both candidates and the Canonical did this diligently, it is still ridiculous in my eyes, it's religion.

manholio 5y ago

Regardless, the asymmetry is offensively wide: it takes at least an order of magnitude more time to write a text than to read it. The candidate is also under pressure to create a well crafted and professional response, essentially a sample of his best writing. You on the other hand, can do a half-ass job reading it, stop for your lunch break and skip the questions you are not interested in - there is absolutely no written record or evaluation of your reading performance. You might read it but others might send it in the bin after the first paragraph. Why would a company put such a large onus on the candidate, and little to none on itself, while the same could be achieved in a 1 hour skype call, where all these questions could be explored in depth in a symmetrical fashion? The only rational answer is that the company has complete disregard for the candidates and actively seeks out submissive people that lend themselves to easy abuse.

ggeorgovassilis 5y ago

In the process of an interview I'd also like to learn something about the company and the job. Such practices require a substantial upfront effort from the candidate without them learning anything about the job they are applying to.